Bush Unites the World

by Mark Weisbrot

Dissident Voice
February 18, 2003

"I'm
a uniter, not a divider," said George W. Bush during his presidential
campaign. He got that one right. He has managed to unite the whole world
against him and the war he proposes to wage against Iraq.

From
New York to Johannesburg, millions of people hit the streets last weekend in
the largest collection of anti-war demonstrations since the Vietnam War. The
biggest, record-breaking protests were in the countries whose governments have allied
themselves with Bush: Rome (one to three million) and London (750,000 to one
million).

So
much for the "coalition of the willing" that Bush has promised to
lead to war if the UN Security Council won't back him. The people who live
under the NATO governments that are backing Bush, according to European polls,
are overwhelmingly against a war without UN approval: Britain (90 percent),
Italy (73 percent), Spain (90 percent), and Turkey (94 percent).

Even
in the "new Europe" of the East, whose cash-poor governments have
wasted billions on weaponry so they could join NATO and curry favor with
Washington, large majorities are against the war. The truth is that if the
world were made up of real democracies, Bush wouldn't have one single country
on his side.

But
he still doesn't get it. Alternating between the roles of the spoiled rich kid
who buys his friends and the belligerence of the neighborhood bully, he has
been slow to learn that neither Washington's money nor all of the Pentagon's
advanced weaponry can win friendship or respect among the people of the world

Mr.
Bush is doing somewhat better on the home front, where polls have found
majorities favoring "military action." This is the result of a media
that repeats his arguments endlessly and only occasionally provides rebuttal,
as well as utter spinelessness among the leadership of the opposition party.
That leaves most Americans in the position of a jury that has heard only one
side of the case.

In
the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, 42 percent of those polled believed
that Saddam Hussein was involved in the September 11 attacks. Not even the
Administration has floated this allegation. This indicates the profound level
of ignorance on which Bush's support is based. The headline for that story should
have read: "Many Americans Misinformed About Iraq War -- The Rest Are
Opposed."

Yet
even in the United States, 59 percent think the U.S. should "wait and give
the U.N. and weapons inspectors more time." And 54 percent would oppose a
war if "thousands of Iraqi civilians were killed," which is extremely
likely.

When
the UN Security Council stood up to Secretary of State Colin Powell last week,
the US stock market soared in response. Why? Because Wall Street knows that
this war is very likely to hurt the economy. Unlike previous wars (World War
II, Korea, Vietnam) that boosted economic growth, this one will almost
certainly have the opposite effect. It will provide little stimulus to domestic
production, while the uncertainty it brings will cause businesses to hold back
on investment. And of course any further oil price increases will deliver
another blow to the economy.

But
the war will provide a distraction, and Mr. Bush seems to have concluded that
he needs this more than anything. We've had a jobless recovery from the last
recession and the next one is already on the horizon. The federal budget --
with help from Bush's tax cuts for the rich -- is headed for a decade or more
of growing deficits. What would these people have to show for themselves without
a war?

The White House claims it is
defying the world on our behalf, to save Americans from the threat of another
September 11 or worse. But nothing could be further from the truth. A
"pre- emptive" war will drastically increase the chances of international
terrorist actions directed at the attackers -- that is one of the reasons why
Europe is so opposed.

Americans
are increasingly coming to realize this too, and President Bush's approval
ratings -- including those relating to his handling of foreign policy -- have
been steadily dropping. As the saying goes, regime change begins at home.